Tyrt and Rubma both: first of all, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject respectfully. A lot of threads I've started in this forum end up very differently.

Two thoughts:

1. My understanding is that Yingling didn't criticize a SPECIFIC decision or individual in public -- which would indeed have consequences damaging to discipline. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it he wrote, in a military journal, a criticism of senior officers as a class, and criticized not their decisions but the limitations they placed on decision-making processes in the name of careerism. I think that's legitimate.

2. As I tried to say in my original post, the decisions which caused the most grief in Iraq were NOT those made by anyone in the military. In fact we know that many senior military, including Shalikashvili, predicted that the number of troops deployed for the invasion wouldn't be sufficient to pacify the country. He was, essentially, fired by the civilians for saying so, which has led -- in my view -- to the situation where his successors have settled for what troops they could get without complaint, even when it was obvious far more were needed.

The military is, thank God, true to the principle of civilian rule, and as a result it is more than one can expect for a serving senior officer to openly criticize the President, no matter how damaging the results of his bungling may be. What I would really like to see is some RETIRED senior officers -- how about YOU, General Powell? -- speak up a bit more loudly. As it stands, the President has behind him the active military (because, of course, it's insubordination to be otherwise) and appears therefore to have his worst decisions endorsed by the "experts" in the field. I understand that most senior officers are conservative, and thus tend to favor Republicans, but it seems to me that loyalty to those who serve under one might come into play here.

The fact is that the military has been given a mission and denied the tools it needs to achieve it because to do so would interfere in tax breaks for the supporters of the ruling party. SOMEBODY ought to be saying that, besides an easily dismissed civilian like myself.

Something you need to understand is that following orders isn't synonymous with agreement. In any organization, somebody has to make the final decision. And in any organization, not everybody is going to agree with it. The task of the senior leadership is to provide the President/SecDef with the best advice they can provide...for and against. But once the decision is made, they are bound to support that decision. It isn't because of party affiliation, loyalty, or blind faith...it is because that is their responsibility.

I personally would be torn...to leave those that work for me because I disagree with a decision. There is that idea that I can do more for their well-being in front of them...than being comfortably out of harms way..and letting someone else handle the business. My disagreement with the decision doesn't stop the decision from being enacted...those that I leave behind still have to live with the decision. I would find it difficult to bail on them because things didn't go my way. I guess it all depends on where one in that position thinks they would do the most good for those they are responsible for. Can I be more effective as the quarterback, or boo-ing from the stands?

Rubma: I completely understand the point you raise, and I agree that it would present a serious dilemma for anyone.

To take up the case I sort of cited -- that of Gen. Powell -- it is my distinct impression that the advice he gave to Bush and Cheney was completely ignored at almost every turn. That the decision to break up the Iraqi army, for example, was executed without his even being consulted, made by men with none of his hard-won experience. This was followed by years of watching the war grow worse and worse while those who were NOT fighting it got fatter and fatter.

It would be one thing if we lived under a dictatorship and Powell knew that Bush and Cheney were going to be running things for the next...whatever...years. Then I think one could make the case that keeping silent makes some sense, because by speaking out, he would end any hope he might have of making things easier for the troops. It would still be a tough call, but there would be a case for silence.

But we are going to change leadership in less than a year, and surely, surely, Powell understands that when McCain defends Bush's policies AND calls for even deeper tax cuts, it means more years of being forced to undertake a mission without the means to execute it.

I'm speaking here of Powell, who has been closer to the decision-making levels than most, and not of those lower on the chain of command. For them, of course, the matter is different. Regardless of who's in the White House, they may feel they are helping their men more by sticking it out and doing what they can to protect them. And I take your point that this is an honorable position.